Publication
10559 (11 July 2022)
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
From Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Published on
Last updated on
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
In the matter of an application under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted
Decision of a Single Member
Name of applicant: [ ]
Application number: 10559
Date of incident: [ ]
Date of application: [ ] (received by the Tribunal [ ] )
Decision outcome: The application is refused under para 21.
1. Ms [ ] (‘the applicant’) has made a claim for compensation under the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted (‘the Scheme’).
2. In her application form, the applicant stated that she had suffered injury as a result of being sexually abused as minor, between the ages of [ ] and [ ], by [ ]. The applicant made two statements to An Garda Síochána, dated [ ] and [ ].
3. In her first statement, dated [ ], the applicant described how she had been abused by [ ] from the age of [ ] or [ ] years of age. The alleged abuse continued when the applicant was attending secondary school. The allegations made by the applicant were of an extremely serious nature and included digital penetration and oral rape. As a young teenager, the applicant stated that she had told [ ], what was happening to her. The applicant’s [ ] did not approach [ ] about what had been reported to her. [ ]. In [ ], when the applicant was [ ] years of age or thereabouts, she told [ ] about the alleged abuse. In [ ], the applicant told a friend about what happened to her. In [ ] or [ ], when the applicant was in her [ ], she told [ ] a few years after that. The applicant confirmed that she had told [ ] about the alleged abuse in the months preceding the making of her first statement to the Gardaí. The applicant also stated that, in the three weeks or so, prior to the making of her statement to Gardaí, [ ] had been in constant contact with her in a manner that amounted to harassment.
4. In her second statement, dated [ ], the applicant gave further particulars of the abuse she alleged she had suffered at [ ] hands, including the duration of the abuse and the location. Significantly, the applicant confirmed that she lived under the same roof as [ ] until she was [ ] (approximately [ ] ) when she moved to stay with [ ]. The applicant further confirmed that the abuse would continue when she went back to stay at [ ] house. Towards the end of her statement, the applicant stated:
‘The whole reason I decided to go to the Guards is when I heard he was giving out sweets to the children..., I was so angry. I could not live with him doing what he did to me, to someone else. The reason I didn't come to the Guards sooner was the stigma and shame and people thinking what he did to me. It was pure guilt and shame that I didn't go to the Guards. There was a fear as well that people wouldn't believe me… Its unbelievable I just knew I had to stop him and not let what he did to me to do to anybody else (sic). I then took the decision that I would go to the Guards and I wouldn't care what Id (sic)have to go through because I did not want to be responsible for what he did to me, to anybody else.’
5. On [ ], the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s solicitors in the following terms:
‘A review of your client’s (sic), which remains open, would appear to show that your client and the offender lived at the same address when the offences occurred. Under Article 10 of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted it states that “No compensation will be payable where the offender and the victim were living together as members of the same household at the time the injuries were inflicted.”
‘Please advise by the [ ] if your client intends pursuing her application with the tribunal if no reply is received by that date, the application will be forwarded to a member for a decision.’
6. Nothing further has been heard from the applicant or her solicitor. In addition, there is no information on file from An Garda Síochána as to whether there was a prosecution of [ ] or, if there was, the outcome of that prosecution. Further, there is no information as to whether civil proceedings were initiated by the applicant against [ ].
7. The applicant’s application for compensation was received by the Tribunal on [ ].
8. Paragraph 21 of the Scheme states:
‘Applications should be made as soon as possible but, except in circumstances determined by the Tribunal to justify exceptional treatment, not later than three months after the event giving rise to the injury.’
9. As can be seen, the application was required to have been made to the Tribunal by the applicant promptly and not less than three months from the date of the incident. A claim that is submitted outside the three-month time limit can only be admitted to the Scheme if the Tribunal considers that the circumstances which resulted in the late submission of the application justify exceptional treatment.
10. In this instance, as the applicant was a minor when the alleged abuse was perpetrated upon her, the application form ought to have been lodged with the Tribunal no later than by [ ], on which date the applicant would have been aged [ ]. In the event, the application form was received by the Tribunal on [ ]. As such, it was lodged almost 25 years’ late.
11. In addition to the reasons advanced by the applicant to explain the delay in reporting the matter as set out in her statement to An Garda Síochána, at Section 2(f) of the application from the applicant explained why the compensation claim had been submitted outside the time period provided for by virtue of paragraph 21. The applicant stated:
‘Injuries concern incidences of sexual abuse when victim was aged [ ] yrs. The matter was only recently reported to An Garda Síochána for investigation following periods of counselling… Accused was convicted unsentenced at [ ] Circuit Court on [ ].’
12. Having carefully considered the matter, the Tribunal could identify no circumstances justifying exceptional treatment which would permit the exercise of its discretion in favour of admitting the application under the Scheme.
13. The Tribunal therefore refused to admit the application under paragraph 21 of the Scheme.
14. However, it should be noted that, the Tribunal has a great deal of sympathy for the circumstances of this application. Should an appeal be brought against this decision, it may assist any Appeal Panel of the Tribunal when considering paragraph 21 afresh, for there to be a report from any counsellor engaged by the applicant which would help an Appeal Panel understand the reasons underlying the extended delay in bringing an application for compensation under the Scheme.
15. In addition, and in no manner seeking to fetter the absolute discretion vested in any Appeal Panel convened for the purpose of considering any appeal, another issue which might arise is whether, properly considered, the applicant and the offender resided under the same roof for the entirety of the period during which the abuse suffered by her was allegedly sustained. In her second statement, the applicant confirmed that she moved out of the house where [ ] resided in [ ] and continued to be abused thereafter (see paragraph 4 supra). If so, this was during a time when the bar on general damages under the Scheme did not apply.
16. NA
17. NA
18. NA
19. Nil.
Conor Heaney
Chairperson, Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal
11 July 2022